Excellent point.  The concept of the soul and theism also is not falsifiable, especially, from an empirical basis.

How would they know that those things are supernatural if there's no way to know anything about them? To declare something supernatural, you'd have to be able to KNOW something about it in order to come to that conclusion. The same thing could be applied to the supernatural itself; how do we know it exists if nothing can be known about it? You can't even make the concession that it's 'possible' if you can't demonstrate that there's a reason to believe it's possible and because of how it's defined, that can't be done.

(July 19, 2017 at 9:40 pm)mordant Wrote: 100% -- one HUNDRED percent -- of all hypotheses about the supernatural, about invisible realms and beings, are not falsifiable hypotheses. We can't say how we'd disprove them systematically according to a proven methodology. So we can't demonstrate, that they are true. Hence, they are inherently unsubstantiatable. And that's by design, because they are completely MADE UP.

Here is an example of something that has been reported by "otherwise" normal respected people. Many people have reported being visited by angels. Can science prove whether or not they were truly visited by angels? If not, are we to assume totally that they were not visited by angels. What do we do with thousands of claims by "otherwise" regular people concerning this?

(July 18, 2017 at 9:37 am)mordant Wrote: heavens eventually become their own hell.

Good point mordant.

I want to ask the theists something.
We know from entropy and expansion that the day will come where there are no stars in the night sky. We as human(oids) may or may not be around to witness that.
In the distant future it is an absolute certainly that the universe will eventually be lifeless again.

What of God and heaven then?
Will God cease to exist also (maybe he's a self creating perpetual machine?)

Who will worship him then? Not us, no other life around? And if there was other life, then we humans aren't his explicitly special flowers.
So basically God's power is not eternal. Which means he's not omni powerful.

(July 19, 2017 at 10:38 pm)Lek Wrote:

(July 19, 2017 at 9:40 pm)mordant Wrote: 100% -- one HUNDRED percent -- of all hypotheses about the supernatural, about invisible realms and beings, are not falsifiable hypotheses. We can't say how we'd disprove them systematically according to a proven methodology. So we can't demonstrate, that they are true. Hence, they are inherently unsubstantiatable. And that's by design, because they are completely MADE UP.

Here is an example of something that has been reported by "otherwise" normal respected people.   Many people have reported being visited by angels.  Can science prove whether or not they were truly visited by angels?  If not, are we to assume totally that they were not visited by angels.  What do we do with thousands of claims by "otherwise" regular people concerning this?

I, an otherwise normal respected person, hereby report seeing a pink elephant following me all day as I go about my business. Can science prove whether or not I am truly accompanied by a pink elephant? If not, are we to assume totally that pink elephants that are visible only to me don't exist? What if a dozen other people report seeing them? What if thousands of otherwise regular people make this claim?

Well the issue isn't whether I'm "mostly" sane or credible yet see pink elephants. The issue is whether I can present any evidence to substantiate it. If I can't, then sorry, it's not substantiated. If thousands of people can't, then sorry, it's not substantiated. It doesn't mean I'm crazy or "not regular", it means I am making an unsubstantiated claim. If the elephant is invisible and not detectable in any way, then it's not even substantiatable.

Finally if I claim the elephant isn't part of the natural world then I have two problems. Now it's REALLY unsubstantiatable, inherently. And if I'm claiming as a matter of knowledge that my pink elephant exists, then I'm making an inherently illogical claim. I'm saying the elephant doesn't exist in the only universe I have access to examine, yet, I can't make that claim since I have no access to that imagined realm where I claim the elephant is.

Science would regard thousands of people claiming to be followed by pink elephants that only they can see, as an interesting case of mass hysteria or delusion, and would examine it as such. It would not consider it an interesting case of invisible pink elephants. Simplest explanation, Occam's Razor, etc.

I'm astounded that here in the 21st century I have to explain this to you, frankly.

(July 19, 2017 at 10:38 pm)Lek Wrote:

(July 19, 2017 at 9:40 pm)mordant Wrote: 100% -- one HUNDRED percent -- of all hypotheses about the supernatural, about invisible realms and beings, are not falsifiable hypotheses. We can't say how we'd disprove them systematically according to a proven methodology. So we can't demonstrate, that they are true. Hence, they are inherently unsubstantiatable. And that's by design, because they are completely MADE UP.

Here is an example of something that has been reported by "otherwise" normal respected people.   Many people have reported being visited by angels.  Can science prove whether or not they were truly visited by angels?  If not, are we to assume totally that they were not visited by angels.  What do we do with thousands of claims by "otherwise" regular people concerning this?

Many thousands of people have reported that they were abducted by aliens, taken to their spaceships and subjugated to anal probes; do you accept those accounts?

(July 20, 2017 at 8:24 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(July 19, 2017 at 10:38 pm)Lek Wrote: Here is an example of something that has been reported by "otherwise" normal respected people.   Many people have reported being visited by angels.  Can science prove whether or not they were truly visited by angels?  If not, are we to assume totally that they were not visited by angels.  What do we do with thousands of claims by "otherwise" regular people concerning this?

Many thousands of people have reported that they were abducted by aliens, taken to their spaceships and subjugated to anal probes; do you accept those accounts?

Lol. My wife and I visited Sedona, Arizona, which is one of those tourist-y places that has lots of New Age woo going on. Vortexes, crystals, places where you can go to have your aura photographed, etc. We stopped by one of these vortexes scenic overlooks and after awhile we were approached by a guy who struck up a conversation with us about aliens being present among us, incognito. He was dead serious, and in fact claimed he ran a radio talk show of some kind on the topic (probably a podcast, but whatever).

Now my current wife is a journalist so she immediately just rolled with it and started asking him journalist questions. The guy lit up like a Christmas tree and beckoned over a couple of other hangers-on, both of who claimed to have been abducted by aliens. They had baroque stories of going into a trance state and floating out of their cars and into the alien ship, with the usual vaguely sexual violations with probes and such.

My wife was so drop-dead serious and earnest in her interrogation, the only thing missing was a mike or a notepad. But the instant we got back to our car she (and I, who had to turn my back at times to contain myself during the "interview") dissolved in gales and gales of uncontrollable laughter.

We came out of that encounter with an invitation, which we accepted, to join them after dusk that night to look at the night sky through night vision binoculars which was supposedly the only way to see the alien spacecraft coming and going from Earth. That fell through because of violent thunderstorms but to this day I'm curious if we could have kept a straight face at such a get together.

My wife and I were still courting at the time and this incident helped me fall in love with her. She doesn't fall for woo, which is now important to me in a mate. But she's kind even to idiots. And she knows how to dig out the truth (or falsity) of a matter. She also has a great sense of the absurd, and the ability to laugh at it.

Point being, as you said, the very people claiming angels must exist because many people claim they exist is no different than aliens or alien abductions being true because many people claim they are. And yet ... through the magic of Special Pleading™, it's okay for one and not the other.

(July 19, 2017 at 6:04 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(July 19, 2017 at 4:48 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. No, virtual particle fluctuations are weakly caused by the energy shifts in a quantum vacuum. The fluctuations are not deterministric, but that does not mean wholly uncaused. There is no warrant to extrapolate this oddity to universe generating cause/effects. 
2. Again, how can there be an infinite number of physical causes/effects when an infinite number of physical objects/changes is not possible? Do you not understand that we would never have gotten to today in an infinite causal chain of events? Your only defense (I'm being generous) seems to be abstract objects that a naturalistic worldview can't account for.
3. Is there a point in there?
4. Your conclusion follows from your premise. See #2 for a defeater to your premise.

#1:  What does "weakly caused" mean?  What causes the energy shifts in a quantum vacuum?  And, what is the cause of the causes of the energy shifts?  And, so forth?  We are not talking about determinism here versus indeterminism but causality.  You have still not answered my question.

#2:  If the Universe is infinite in spatial extent, how could there not be an "actual infinite" of physical things, especially, given what you have said in #1.  If you reject the FLRW metric, then, please, stop quoting the BGV Theorem!!  And, please, stop talking about physics!  No physicist (even the believers) agrees with you (or Craig)!

#3:  The existence of actual infinities is accepted within the physics and astronomy community.  Read The Physical Universe by Professor Frank Shu (published in 1981, but still in print).  Professor Shu discusses actual infinities all throughout his textbook, which is seminal within the astrophysical community (which is why it is still in print).

#4:  You reject the existence of actual infinities; scientists don't.  As Professor Morriston has pointed out, the existence of actual infinities is hardly a logical impossibility, because God, if he/she/it exists, could create those:

http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/NewKalamCritique.pdf

Please read the above; it will hep you!

Best,

Dawn

1. The conditions must be present. We do not know if there is a cause or not. It is certainly a whole different thing than talking about uncaused universes springing up here and there from nothing than what might be causing quantum fluctuation where all the moving parts are present in a closed system. Do you think that quantum scientist have thrown up their hands and declared "no cause" or is this a case of atheism of the gaps!

2. The universe is not infinite in any way.

3. In mathematics it is a useful tool. No one believes that there are actually an infinite amount of anything physical. 

4.  Please type or cut and paste the paragraph where you think someone can show there can be an actual infinity of objects or events. All I see in any of your links is equivocating between potentially infinite and actually infinite and "well, we don't know". Until then, I (and most people who are NOT trying to avoid the problem of an uncaused cause) will rely on logic, reason, and observation--which many atheist want to set aside when inconvenient. 

From Morrison's paper (your link), quoting your favorite philosopher:

Quote:To say that the infinite past could have been formed by successive addition is like saying that someone has just succeeded in writing down all the negative numbers,
ending at 0. We could ask, why didn’t he finish counting yesterday or the day before or the year before? By then an infinite time had already elapsed, so that he
should already have finished. Thus at no point in the infinite past could we ever find the man finishing his countdown, for by that point he should already be done! 
In fact, no matter how far back into the past we go, we can never find the man counting at all, for at any point we reach he will already have finished. But if at
no point in the past do we find him counting, this contradicts the hypothesis that he has been counting from eternity. This shows again that the formation of an
actual infinite by never beginning but reaching an end is as impossible as beginning at a point and trying to reach infinity (Craig 2008, 124).

What was Morrison's response?

Quote:This is much too quick for me. Given beginningless time, our man has indeed always already had enough time to complete his count of all the negative numbers, but it does not follow that he must have done so. It’s true that we have been given no reason why he is reaching zero just now rather than at some earlier time. I’m not sure we couldn’t build a reason into our story, but that is a side issue. The important point is this: from the fact that we know of no reason why something is so, it does not follow that it is impossible for it to be so. 

What??

(July 19, 2017 at 9:40 pm)mordant Wrote: There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. Supernatural. It is a useless and illogical concept. Anything that is truly supernatural, we would have no information about. Anything you claim to have information about, would be natural by definition, because you're a natural creature with natural senses and a natural brain. The corollary to this is that as soon as you have any actual data about something, it is no longer supernatural, even if the supernatural DID exist. If god reveals himself, he has entered the realm of the natural universe and is no longer outside it and so is not supernatural. [1]

100% -- one HUNDRED percent -- of all assertions about the supernatural and its inhabitants are unsubstantiated. That is to say, it's not just not fully substantiated, it's not substantiated AT ALL -- not even a BIT. [2]

100% -- one HUNDRED percent -- of all hypotheses about the supernatural, about invisible realms and beings, are not falsifiable hypotheses. We can't say how we'd disprove them systematically according to a proven methodology. So we can't demonstrate, that they are true. Hence, they are inherently unsubstantiatable. And that's by design, because they are completely MADE UP. [3]

1. It is not true that we would have no information about it. It's pretty much the whole purpose of the Bible and other writings to provide information on the supernatural. The supernatural has causal power in the natural world--presto--information available to consider. It does not make any sense that causal power from the supernatural to the natural world changes the supernatural into the natural. It only indicates the effects are natural. 
2. Except the ones that are witnessed, believed and cataloged (see the NT for examples of evidenced supernatural causation).
3. Falsificationism is a theory about what makes a claim scientific, and not every rationally acceptable claim is or ought to be a scientific claim. Hence not every rationally acceptable claim is or ought to be empirically falsifiable. Your conclusion is absolutely unwarranted.

(July 20, 2017 at 10:44 am)SteveII Wrote:

(July 19, 2017 at 9:40 pm)mordant Wrote: There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. Supernatural. It is a useless and illogical concept. Anything that is truly supernatural, we would have no information about. Anything you claim to have information about, would be natural by definition, because you're a natural creature with natural senses and a natural brain. The corollary to this is that as soon as you have any actual data about something, it is no longer supernatural, even if the supernatural DID exist. If god reveals himself, he has entered the realm of the natural universe and is no longer outside it and so is not supernatural. [1]

100% -- one HUNDRED percent -- of all assertions about the supernatural and its inhabitants are unsubstantiated. That is to say, it's not just not fully substantiated, it's not substantiated AT ALL -- not even a BIT. [2]

100% -- one HUNDRED percent -- of all hypotheses about the supernatural, about invisible realms and beings, are not falsifiable hypotheses. We can't say how we'd disprove them systematically according to a proven methodology. So we can't demonstrate, that they are true. Hence, they are inherently unsubstantiatable. And that's by design, because they are completely MADE UP. [3]

1. It is not true that we would have no information about it. It's pretty much the whole purpose of the Bible and other writings to provide information on the supernatural. The supernatural has causal power in the natural world--presto--information available to consider. It does not make any sense that causal power from the supernatural to the natural world changes the supernatural into the natural. It only indicates the effects are natural. 
2. Except the ones that are witnessed, believed and cataloged (see the NT for examples of evidenced supernatural causation).
3. Falsificationism is a theory about what makes a claim scientific, and not every rationally acceptable claim is or ought to be a scientific claim. Hence not every rationally acceptable claim is or ought to be empirically falsifiable. Your conclusion is absolutely unwarranted.

Please do present to me any substantiation you can offer for the supernatural, and demonstrate clearly how it's distinguishable from just asserting something to be true, or stating that you afford belief to it as true.

Pro tip: ancient writings making assertions or large numbers of people making assertions are no more substantiations or evidence of any kind, than are your assertions. "Witnessed, believed and cataloged" is not substantiation. They are just assertions / claims until they can be evidenced. More assertions, longstanding assertions, assertions by authorities or by claimed holy books, popular assertions, etc., are still just assertions, not evidence.

Millions once asserted that the best treatment for disease was bleeding with leeches. Including medical authorities. Including books that it was written down in. You would have no trouble finding people who witnessed, believed and cataloged healing with leeches. None of that made it true that leeches were effective or appropriate treatments for the vast majority of illnesses, or for the notion of bodily humors being out of balance, etc. being the cause of those diseases.